These guys have no diplomatic skills what so ever, their just a bunch of bullies.

I was kind of proud for making a very similar call last night in my last two grafs of post #27, because I think Oliphant has one of the sharpest minds in the business.

Despite the decision of the UN, and IAEA lack of support…Not having open dialogue with Iran, is of considerable cost to us here in US. For instance; quiet US sanctions prep. (in the past few weeks) has also witnessed a deadly increase in insurgence…

Trying to prevent them from peaceful nuclear technology is laughable, and a non-starter. There may well be reason for concern as to what it may lead to, and thus there may be reason for us to negotiate an agreement with them that entails having them voluntarily forgo that track, but there is no way we can force them to do so.

We can, however, force them not to develop nuclear weapons. That is the only valid red line that we are in any legal or practical position to enforce. And it has been rather foolish of us to try to hold the line on the no-enrichment red line.

Most of the world, on the other hand, could fully understand our concerns about nuclear weapons in Iran, and perhaps the Iranian people as well would prefer not to see their own government with such weapons. Holding a firm line against WEAPONS is a rational policy. Building a red line against enrichment is foolish, and self-defeating.

While you have shown contradictions or to be generous, lets just say progressions, you stake the Iranian right to pursue its nuclear program because its peaceful but if it be for weapons, you say we hold firm on Weapons.

How about Iran’s violations of its NPT obligations, might this be a clue?

I wonder, is it possible that Iran’s concurrent nuclear-capable missle production and a very rapid program of acquiring and refining missles of ever greater sophistication and target range (Shehab-4, Shehab-5, Shehab-6), might this be a clue?

How about Iran in full view and worldwide proclaiming: “We will crush America under our feet” and “Israel must be wiped off the map,” might this be another clue?

This could go to even more clues, right down the line. They sure have me convinced that your idea of “peaceful” doesn’t exist in either Iranian word or deed.

I think too much is made of Amahdinejad’s craziness. Of course his rhetoric is loony, but I don’t really see him acting irrationally so far. He is aggressivly pushing Iranian interests on this issue - which is a highly rational thing to do, from the perspective of an Iranian government. If he had been pliable, and “rational”, he would simply have acceeded to our concerns and abandonded his nuclear program. What would be the benefit to Iran of that? Hell, he wouldnt even get a “safe” reactor out of the deal if he didn’t play tough to some extent.

Besides what Ahmadinejad said in the above sourced links, does also being a Holocaust Denier kind of help along?

How about Ahmadinejad’s mystical experience at the UN? Perhaps a hint of craziness, yet?

How about Ahmadinejad’s Da’wa to President Bush and another to be sent to Pope Benedict?

Then there is Ahmadinejad’s “Divine mission” and the imminent coming of the 12th or Hidden Imam. If not crazy, then certainly an absolute messianic. I prefer crazy.

One has to keep in mind that this is not the same White House that existed when Sy Hersh wrote his article. Josh Bolton is a realist, he never drank the Kool Aid. I’m sensing a seismic shift in the White House, a humbling of sorts, a realizing that they weren’t as smart as they thought they were. As limited as Bush’s brain might be even he must see what a mess he has made in Iraq and it is causing him to loose his nerve.

There is no realistic military option with Iran and they know it. At least not one that won’t spin the region into war and drive the price of oil though the roof.

“To underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table,” Rice says in her prepared text. “We hope that in the coming days, the Iranian government will thoroughly consider this proposal.”

What a load of crap that is. “Our commitment to a diplomatic solution?” What the hell is she talking about? The Bush administration up until now wouldn’t give the Iranian government the time of day. “…As soon as Iran fully…suspends its enrichment…activities.” That’s her idea of diplomacy? Do what we want and we’ll negotiate with you. Yeah right.

“No options have been taken of the table.” That sounds like more red meat for the rightwing nut jobs of the supreme “Watchers Council.” What Iran wants is what everybody wants: respect. Until the U.S. shows a little respect their not budging. I predict the U.S. will drop the enrichment condition and begin talks anyway. The future of Iraq depends on it.

I am going to refer to a couple of old post of yours. First, I am going to refer to the “Breitbart article”. It is the one which states the IAEA found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site. I am just curious as to whether or not there was a follow up story.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/12/D8HI8SPG0.html

The second thing I want to say is that I was under the impression we “legally” can not do anything to Iran even if they sent warhead filled with Dookie at Capitol Hill. I mean how bad were the those concessions that Carter made?

Tano pretty much answered your question, but yes, I don’t think the Iranians understand our position completely. They see themselves in a position of strength. High oil revenues and endless media reports about America’s “overstretched” and vulnerable military reinforce that position. They do not seriously believe that we are able, much less willing, to attack them over this issue.

Tano raises an excellent point about the problem of media diplomacy. Messages to Iran delivered through the media must be carefully nuanced to take into account all the audiences that will hear them besides Iran: The US domestic audience, our allies, our enemies, other potential proliferators, and those parts of the Iranian government and population that do not support the mullahs. Private talks will allow use to deliver our message, and hear theirs, without all the muddlement. Private talks will allow us to confirm if Amahdinejad’s crazy statements are truly Iranian policy.

I don’t discount the apocalypse theories completely, but I think the core decision makers in Iran are more rational than the impression provided by the Iranian President. Iran is still a factious society and the government and military is no exception, even with the recent purges of moderates.

I hear a term thrown around frequently in regard to Iran: “Can we afford not to….” Specifically, I read blogs that advocate attacking Iran because “we can’t afford” not to believe Amahdinejad will do the worst. Rather than predicate our policy and course of action (especially in regard to war and peace) on a worst-case assumption we should instead try to discover the truth since the threat is not imminent. Direct talks will help do that.

Seymour Hirsch was making judgments based on his own bias with only a few pieces of the evidence pie. His statement regarding attacking Iran is idiotic on its face. The military planning that he reported is not only necessary but it is a legal requirement as well. I’m sure the military has plans regarding the worst-case apocalypse scenario among many scenarios for and Iranian conflict. Hirsch and others – mainly on the left – make the mistake of equating planning with policy.

Steve Sturm:
“There’s nothing we could/would say to Iran that would make them back down.”

I assume to have evidence to support that conjecture? You can’t know what will make them back down until you go find out.